Thursday, December 17, 2009

As was expected, Judge Strickland denied the defense's motion to toss out the death penalty. WFTV reported that:

In his ruling, Judge Stan Strickland said the issue of whether to sentence Casey Anthony to death, should she be found guilty, is one best left for a jury to decide. “While the quantum of evidence sufficient to seek the death penalty will virtually always be an issue, that matter is generally best left for the jury,” Judge Strickland wrote in his ruling.

The Orlando Sentinel is reporting that Judge Strickland has denied the motion regarding the videotaping of attorney-client meetings. They report that:

A judge won't stop Orange County Jail officials from recording visits between Casey Anthony and her attorneys.

Orange CircuitCourt Judge Stan Strickland ruled Thursday on the defense's request to stop those recordings. He wrote in the two-page order that he can't force the jail to "cease and desist from videotaping Ms. Anthony's meeting with her attorneys."

However, he does have concerns about content of any videotape that might be released and has seen at least one that would impact Anthony's right to a fair trial, Strickland wrote.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

It seems like yesterday that we heard that the bones of a small child had just been found on Suburban Dr., just around the corner and down the road a bit from the Anthony family home. Deep in their hearts, people knew it was Caylee Marie Anthony.

It's been a year now, and to mark this sad anniversary, I dedicate this hearing review to her memory.

It's all about finding justice for this little Angel.

It seems ironic that one of the most explosive and emotional hearing took place on this same date, one year later. It was a hearing where the State laid out a graphic description of a possible scenario for her death and her mother showed some very strong emotions.

3. That there is no area of inquiry of Mr. Casey that would not be privileged (see attached privilege log filed in Gonzalez civil case dealing with the same issues).7. The only arguable areas that have had a partial waiver of confidentiality are the areas of inquiry by law enforcement of Mr. Casey having looked in the area of where the body was ultimately found in the months prior to it being found. This transcript reveals that there was no incriminating or relevant information relating to the prosecution of Casey Anthony revealed during this interview, nor was any intended.

In an interview on InSession prior to the hearing, the Anthony family attorney Brad Conway said that he had spoken to Assistant State's Attorney Linda Drane Burdick As a result of this discussion, he didn't think that neither he nor Cindy and George would have to testify in the matter. He added that since he, as an attorney, had not hired Mr. Casey, the Anthonys, as private citizens would generally not have an expectation of privilege in the relationship. He said that Mr. Casey had agreed to do the deposition and go through it question by question regarding "privilege".

Once in court, Casey's attorney, Diana Tennis essentially argued to Judge Stan Strickland that Dominic Casey was not on the witness list and therefore not able to be deposed. She also indicated that Casey did not want "any more involvement in this case than is required by the court..."

Linda Drane Burdick had apparently filed a response which dealt with privilege versus the information provided by Ms. Tennis. In order for the State to question Mr. Casey, they would have to issue an investigative subpoena. If Jose Baez wanted to be present at an interview of such nature, he would have to add him to his witness list.

One thing that I noticed was that Ms. Tennis kept discussing the Anthonys waiving their "privilege" and Linda Drane Burdick also mentioned that they did not have privilege. This seems very confusing since none of the information the State is looking for comes after Casey and Baez parted contractual ways in October, 2008.

In the end, it was decided to issue an investigative subpoena and carry on with the scheduled interview later in the month. Baez indicated he might add Casey to the witness list in order to be present.

Strickland indicated that there "may be more to do about this" in terms of a future deposition.

Andrea Lyon stood and asked the judge how he was feeling today. Strickland replied with a somewhat ironic answer, "just sitting on a rainbow".

She then began her presentation, merging the two motions. She indicated they are not addressing the videos that have been released. She filed a response to the County's response the previous day.

After a faltering beginning, Lyon stated that she would begin with the video taping of attorney client meetings. She gave a detailed description of the classroom where they meet with Casey who would be brought to the room in shackles. She described how Casey would sit with her back to a plate glass window that opens onto a hall where there are two guard stations with views of the room. She indicated that there is a video camera, whose audio, they say, is disabled up on the wall in a corner with a red light on. She said that there was also an intercom in the room and that they can hear it click from time to time.

Because of these obvious indications that the conferences could be overheard, Lyon indicated that they felt uncomfortable when speaking to their client. Since this is a death penalty case and they have to discuss intimate and embarrassing aspects of Casey's life. She said that they are easily observed by the guards and that Casey is a small, shackled person who does not pose a threat to her, a larger person. Lyon said that the camera should be turned off.

Lyon also told the Court that pictures have been released as well as incidents (hugging?) have been reported to the media. Lyon wanted all those videos destroyed.

She pauses and asks if there are any questions. Strickland tells her to move on.

She then moved on to the family and friends' visits. She described the meeting situation, rather inaccurately. She described the meetings as being over a phone (correct) with Plexiglas between the parties (incorrect), with no way below them to pass items (incorrect).

Lyon needs to learn the set up for visits in Orange County Jail! They are done by video and the parties are in separate buildings.

Moving along, Lyon indicated that phone calls can be recorded, but there is no need to keep them once it is determined there is no breach of security, no "escape plans" In this case the tapes get on the Internet and are dissected by voracious media and people and creates legions of prejudice. She went on to say that there is no need for that to happen. If they are not needed for reasons of security, there is no need to keep them.

Lyon moved on to say that the State of Florida is trying to kill her client (warning, she, and now Baez, are throwing around that word quite a bit). She said that Casey needs the support of friends and family. She can't meet with them due to the current situation.

When Lyon said, "Casey has needs for someone to just come and say 'I Love You'," Casey got all "teary-eyed" in her first show of emotion for the day and dabbed at her eyes.

Lyon told the judge that he has jurisdiction to change the rules.

Cindy sniffled...

Lyon told the judge that he could seal the videos so the public has no access to them, he had already sealed one video in the case, he could do that again.

Just a reminder, the video that was sealed was the one of Casey's reaction to the news of the discovery of the skeletal remains of a child not far from her family home.

Lyon told the judge that he can find that the annoyance and embarrassment outweighs the law.

Her conclusion was that the jail should cease taping attorney-client meetings and that family videos should be reviewed. If there were no security issue, they should be destroyed.

One thing Lyon failed to note was that LE can watch the meetings as they are going on. In them, they could find Casey imparting incriminating evidence or other indications of guilt and they could be used against her in a court of law!

Tammy Gaffin, the Orange County attorney spoke for the jail. She pointed out that the jail is well run and one of only 300 accredited jails in the country. The jail is required by law to follow certain procedures for security and risk management. They would be breaking the law if they destroyed videos. She indicated that the public records law in Florida allowed any citizen to file a Freedom of Information Form and receive copies of the videos. Following her presentation, an attorney from the Orlando Sentinel spoke briefly and backed Ms. Gaffin's statements.

To keep this short, the judge stated he will rule on the motion the same day or the following week. It will be interesting to see how he handles the lawyer meetings issue. As for meetings for poor, stressed-out Casey, I doubt the judge will give her any relief on the issue. Quite frankly, if all that happened in these meetings were "Kumbaya Moments", nobody would care to see them. The problem is that the family is full of loose cannons on both sides of the video screen. As for friends, one can only wonder how may "friends" Casey has left to visit her. The last time Casey's pastor came to offer consolation over the discovery of Caylee's remains, she left him cooling his heels and ultimately sent him away.

Judge Strickland said that he would grant the motion for now and that it may come up at a later time.

It will be very interesting to follow what happens with the whole Texas Equusearch situation. Thank goodness, that will be left to another hearing which could prove to be a true humdinger, especially if the Roy Kronk mess is dealt with at the same time!

At this point in the hearing, there was a ten minute break. When the hearing resumed, the

Baez stated that the defense positions are clearly outlined in the pleadings. He said that he wants to insure that Ms. Anthony is treated like any other individual. He said he "took issue" that there were 13 counts for writing four checks. He asked if the state can stand up and say they treat everyone that way. He stated that he takes "serious issue" with this issue. An armada of police car came down Hopespring Drive....

Judge Strickland indicated that he had read motion and understands his thoughts

Assistant State's Attorney Frank George, the lead attorney in the fraud case, stated that they also rely on the motions to speak for themselves, wouldn't address Baez's editorial contents.

Judge Strickland said he would decide Friday or early next week. He did indicate that this case would be resolved by trial/plea before the capital case. He stated that he will treat Casey like everybody else, but this charging situation is not unusual.

The judge indicated that since Casey has no priors, and since they were felonies, she could, if found guilty, get some jail time with concurrent sentences.

I think we all pretty much know what will happen some time this coming week on this one. There was an also not-so-subtle indication to the defense that this trial will not be continued!

Death-penalty attorney Andrea Lyon addressed the court for approximately 40 minutes. I will provide as brief summary as possible of what she discussed before the court.

Lyon first addressed the issue of "bad faith" mentioned in her motion. She stated that the reason State had asked for death penalty is that they want to get as biased, conviction-prone jury as possible. She said that the State's case is based on the presumption that since Casey didn't report daughter missing, she killed her. She indicated that a death-qualified jury is more conviction-prone and that she would discuss it later.

She went on to say that the death penalty was not appropriate because State removed it on December 5, 2008 because they didn't have a strong enough case to pursue it. She continued on to say that after the remains were found, that the State's case was even weaker because the autopsy provided no proof of how the Caylee Anthony died.

Lyon went on to mention such factors as the fact that this is a 100% circumstantial case and that there was a lack of good faith on the part of the prosecution (nothing personal). She indicated that the prosecution gets to decide what to charge, the defense has no say. However, this ability is not unfettered. She cited that there is an impermissible motive: that a death penalty here is being used is to coerce a plea. She stated that in this case there is insufficient evidence to establish 1st degree/capital murder. The defense can't prove premeditated design or that the death occurred during the commission of a felony. She said that the State had no way to prove method of death. She also said that there was no such proof in the 10,000 plus pages of discovery.

Lyon continued her arguments by stating that there were insufficient aggravating circumstances to bolster the charge. She listed all those that could not conceivably apply. Among them were that the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel. She stated that the State had not "deigned" to tell the court what they were. She said that the State could not prove that there was suffering or unnecessary pain.

Lyon indicated that there was no proof of cruelty or torture. The State could not say if the victim have knowledge of her impending death.

The only circumstance that the State could prove was that the victim was a child under the age of 12. (One is the magic number in a death penalty case, the State needs only to prove one aggravating circumstance.) She repeated that the prosecution cannot establish that the crime was cold, calculated, or premeditated. She continued by stating that the prosecution cannot prove Ms. Anthony committed another felony in the process of the murder, that of aggravated child abuse.

Lyon then said that EVERY witness the police talked to saw any proof of abuse and that Casey was a good mother who loved her daughter.

During Lyon's statements, Casey was continually sniffling.

Lyon went on to discuss the one aggravating factor that the State can possible have, that the victim was under the age of 12.

That the victim was vulnerable due to age and under authority of another, she asserted, has only been used in the cases of the elderly.

She also said that the under 12 aggravating factor is not offender related, it doesn't show that age is a factor. It only requires a birth certificate and that it has been ruled that a birth certificate alone is not enough to prove vulnerability.

Lyon didn't think this would pass Constitutional muster because it only applies to state of the victim and has nothing to do with the offender.

Intermixed with her arguments, Ms. Lyon mentioned that the death penalty was reserved for the "worst of the worst" criminals. She formed a pyramid at with the "worst of the worst" of murderers at the very apex. One case she cited was that of a child beaten to death by her mother with a baseball bat. The pain the child felt would have been the aggravating factor. She pointed out that in this case and in others, the State did not ask for the death penalty.

What happened next is that Ms. Lyon went on to give a lecture to the judge about various sociological studies concerning death-penalty qualified juries. To sum up her major point, she said that death penalty juries tend to be homogeneous, with all members of a single mind concerning the death penalty. Mixed, non-death penalty juries talk more about the case in their deliberations. According to these studies, mock death penalty juries made mistakes and non-death penalty juries didn't.

Since that was true, based on all the studies she mentioned, she felt it meant that the State shouldn't impanel a "politically homogenious death-penalty qualified jury" because it would be unfair to her client. It was a rather ingenious argument.

Personally, I felt that her long lecture to the judge was more appropriate for the Supreme Court.

Finally, Judge Strickland interjected that even while her comments "resonated with him" , this had "been done". Later on, he indicated here that she was "reinventing the wheel".

State's Attorney Jeff Ashton began his argument next.

He began by stating that the defense had been "arguing their opinion, not the law". He then stated that in the State of Florida, all Grand Jury 1st degree indictments automatically includes the death penalty. He essentially stated that it was not up to the prosecution to make the decision, it was up to to jury, should a guilty verdict be reached. All they can do is to decide to let the jury decide. He also stated that the prosecution believed that the discovery of the remains had provided information that had given the State a stronger case. It is also noted that aggravating factors cannot be determined prior to trial.

Then, Ashton made the comment that of course, Ms. Anthony is presumed innocent, he went on to give the following "summation" of his case if she was deemed guilty. It was brilliant, and it was moving.

Caylee was almost three when she died, with duct tape over her nose and her mouth. Any child of that age should have had the physical ability to remove the duct tape covering her airway and preventing her from breathing. And the evidence in this case would indicate that Caylee was, if not average, above average in that regard.

A juror might conclude, then, that she must have been restrained, either chemically or physically.If chemically restrained, her killer prepared some substance in advance that would render her physically unable to resist, administered the substance, awaited its effect, and then methodically applied three pieces of duct tape to completely cut off the flow of air to her mouth or her nose and let nature take its course. At least, Caylee wouldn't have had any fear.

How would jurors apply those facts to the law the court would give them?If she was physically restrained, her killer would have had to restrain her arms by some means, applying tape while she was conscious. As the killer looked into her face, maybe her killer even saw her eyes as the tape was applied, first one piece, then two, then three, so that no breath was possible. Could Caylee have understood what was happening to her? Did she try to resist? Could her killer see the fear in her eyes as the tape was applied?

These are questions only the jurors will be able to answer in this case.

One thing we do know is this: if we have gotten to this stage, those same jurors have already decided that the face that Caylee Anthony saw in those final moments of her life was her mother’s face. Anyone who contends that no juror could find that these conclusions call for a sentence of death is only fooling themselves. Thank you.

Needless to say, this speech had a profound effect on those listening. Cindy Anthony bolted from the courtroom followed by George and some of their supporters. Casey could be heard over the microphone asking her attorney to "make him stop." Casey also had a very visual reaction and Andrea Lyon spent a great deal of this time holding onto her arm. I won't even fathom a guess as to what her expressions mean, I'll just post some pictures here.

Andrea Lyon spoke briefly at the end and made it a point to say that she appreciated the fact that Ashton had reminded "whoever was listening" that Casey is presumed innocent. She also stated that there was no evidence that the duct tape had anything to do with her death. She went on to speak a bit more and reminded the judge that he could rule for the defense in this case.
The experts have already opined that this motion has no chance of being granted, but we will have to wait and see.
The hearing ended with Judge Strickland saying that he had heard some good lawyering today and that they have a date of January 25 at 10:00 AM for fraud trial. The jury selection process will begin next week.

For those of you who haven't had the opportunity to view the hearing, I'm posting it here. There's no way I can tell you everything that happened or you would be reading a far longer post!

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Jean Casarez, is on InSession and has just reported that George Anthony, Cindy Anthony, and Brad Conway were subpoenaed by the STATE! While the State isn't speaking, she surmised that they may be testifying in the situation with Dominic Casey.

Yesterday, the State filed two motions concerning the case against Casey Anthony. They are very interesting, so I thought I'd mark my time waiting for tomorrow's hearing by reviewing them.

The first motion is yet another request for a witness list and discovery concerning the murder trial.

At a scheduling conference with the court on July 7, 2009, counsel for the defendant Anthony advised that trial preparation in the case would take approximately one year...

In addition, Drane Burdick mentions that Andrea Lyon would present motions after Labor Day and provide a motions schedule to the court. Lyon has certainly presented motions, we haven't seen a proposed motions schedule yet.

In paragraph 2, Drane Burdick indicates that based on the volume of information, a date of January 21, 2010 was set for a trial status hearing and the trial was moved to summer, 2010.

In the third paragraph, she reiterates that the only discovery presented by the defense to date are a Defense Witness List (November 20, 2008) and an Amended Defense Witness List (January 22, 2009). She also points out to the court that the original form of the witness list was improper and had to be refiled.

Paragraph 4 starts to get to the heart of the matter.

... Miss Anthony has filed motions with attached statements from witnesses purporting to have information regarding specific aspects of the case.

This motion asks Judge Strickland to allow the defense access to all the records from Texas Equsearch. They claim that there were more than 32 searchers in the area and that they had found two people who searched the area and were not on the TES list. I'll discuss this motion and the other new motion later on.

In the 5th paragraph of the State's motion, Drane-Burdick states that

Neither motion was filed with a list of the names and addresses of witnesses as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(d)(1)(A). Instead, upon inquiry, the undersigned was informed initially via email from Andrea Lyon on Friday, November 20, 2009 that the "potential witnesses should be obvious from the filing", and then ultimately an email was received from Jose Baez on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 with "witness contact information" listing lawyers for Crystal & Brandon Sparks (in Washington DC), Jill Kerley (in Knoxville, TN) and Laura Buchanan (in Woodbridge, NJ). At that point, the undersigned made a specific request for a formal witness list with current addresses as required by the Rule and was advised that the defense feels they have no "further obligation to file anything" and "...the witnesses do not want the media harassing them in the meantime."

Applause for Ms. Drane Burdick here. She clearly states that the defense is playing by its own rules, to the neglect of the requirements of the rules of law.

Ms. Drane Burdick goes on in paragraph 6 to point out that the "unilateral decision" of the defense to hold required information about potential witnesses to run "afoul of the basic tenents of the Rules of Criminal Procedure".

Paragraph 7 details the circumstances under which the defense could hold this information confidential.

Beginning with the 8th paragraph, Drane Burdick addresses the issue of witness lists.

... the State of Florida can not adequately address the schedueling of the trial without the legally appropriate notification by the defendant of ALL witnesses she will call during trial.

Paragraphs 9 and addresses some very telling information about the investigative work done to date by the prosecution.

At a hearing on December 12, 2008, the defendant suggested that she had retained a bevy of expert witnesses to assist with her defense. Yet, a year later, not one of these individuals is listed by the defendant, nor have they sought to examine any of the evidence collected either before or after December 11, 2008. The only evidence review to date occurred on November 14, 2008 when Dr. Henry Lee examined the defendant's vehicle at the Orange County Sheriff's Office noting that he would need to return to finish the exam at a later date. He has yet to do so.(9)

Certainly the defendant can choose to not review the evidence, or depose particular witnesses, or even file additional motions.... (11)

This rather startling information leads me to believe that the defense just may lack sufficient funds to have their own experts travel to Florida and inspect the evidence. Or, it is possible that the defense will rely on the OSCO, FDLE, and FDI results to build a case based on the banner phrase "junk science"? Another possibility is that the defense experts have already reviewed the material and have informally told the defense that the testing is well done and the methodology only should be attacked at trial.

Paragraph 10 addresses other witnesses who should be listed for the case.

The defendant has conducted depositions of a few "civilian" witnesses, including several that were not completed and has done no depositions of the law enforcement investigators or any listed expert witness.

This certainly sounds like delay to me. The defense has had over a year to get this case together. After a flurry of depositions last summer, the only notice for deposition that has been submitted is for Roy Kronk's ex-wife, Jill Kerley which involves an attempt to pin the murder on the meter-reader.

In her closing, Linda Drane Burdick tells the judge she wants to see the defense get moving on these matters.

...the State of Florida respectfully request that this Honorable Court conduct a hearing on this matter, or alternatively, order the defendant to immediately turn over any and all evidence to include the names and addresses of witnesses, and any statements or reports generated by those witnesses, and any tangible papers or objects to be used at hearing or trial. The State additionally requests that this Court enter a pretrial order setting discovery, motion, and hearing deadlines, applicable to both parties, so this matter can proceed to trial as expeditiously as possible.

I am convinced that Baez & Co. are spending the majority of their money and time desperately hunting for reasonable doubt in the case. Recently, the motions have dealt with Roy Kronk's character and the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the remains. No doubt, they are impelled by the February 1 date by which they have to provide concrete facts to back up Todd Macaluso's claim that the defense has proof that Casey did not put Caylee's body in the swamp on Suburban Drive.

In the motion, Baez essentially calls Tim Miller of being a liar and of having not included all searchers of the area on Suburban Drive. Baez states in the motion that

The Defense, through its own independent investigation, has interviewed sever TES searchers who not only searched the area where the remains were found, bu who were not among the thirty-two (32) identified by TES. As reflected in their individual signed statements, these individuals each submitted detailed reports of their search to TES, none of which were disclosed to the Defense.

Exhibit A in the defense motion is the statement of Joseph Jordan. He met with his attorney and an investigator (not identified) for the defense team on October 27, 2009. In his statement, Jordan made the following four statements:

a. On September 1, 2008, I was a volunteer member for Texas Equu Search (TES).

b. On September 1, 2008, I and a group of approximately 30 TES volunteers went to the area of Suburban and Hope Springs Streets in Orlando, Florida. We went to that area to search for the remains of Caylee Anthony.

c. Although I was in the area with over 30 people, only five to six volunteers and I searched the area by the stockade fence along the south side of Suburban Street near Hope Springs Street. Among the five to six volunteers with me were Danny Ibison and his dog and a Panama City Sheriff's Deputy with one of his two dogs.

d. All of the information concerning the search was reduced to writings which were placed on specific forms provided to me by TES. I am a very detailed person and I kept a detailed list of the items I saw and there (sic) location which I believed were important to a missing person investigation. All of this information was provided to TES.

When I first read this statement, I was very confused. During the searches in September, I followed Mr. Jordan's group of people through his and web site. I was aware that he had searched on his own and posted pictures at his site. I imagine these searches were not with TES, which prohibits searchers from taking pictures. I had not been aware he had searched with TES. My question would be, was he searching OFFICIALLY with TES or did he and some of his fellow searchers break off on their own. My second question was how far from the stockade fence they searched. Mr. Jordan did not include in his statement any comments about the search conditions such as standing water or dense vegetation. The area near the stockade fence was high and dry and clear as it abutted a house.

Well, that wasn't the end of the story concerning his statement. Yesterday, Linda Drane Burdickfiled another motion.

The very same day that he signed the statement, Joe Jordan called the OCSO and spoke to Cpl Eric Edwards. He indicated he had been interviewed by a defense investigator that morning and has surreptitously recorded the interview in violation of Florida Law. Since it was illegally recorded, Ms. Drane Burdick couldn't listen to it.

Subsequently, she was present for an interview with Jordan and states in the motion that

Based upon representations made during the course of that interview, the illegally recorded statement may materially conflict with the subsequent interview.

The OCSO and the defense team both refused to press charges against Jordan and Drane Burdick asks the court to not allow it to be released as it was illegally obtained.

It sounds to me as though Mr. Jordan tried to do the right thing for himself and went about it in the wrong way. Did he have a concern that somehow. the interviewer phrased questions in such a way as to paint his actions differently than they really were? Anyway, this leaves Mr. Jordan pretty much out of the equation to support the defense motion!

The other person interviewed by the defense was a New Jersey woman, Laura Buchanan. In her statement, she asserts that

1. My name is Laura Buchanan and I currently live in Mendham, New Jersey.

2. On September 3, 2008, I was a volunteer for Texas Equus (sic) Search.

3. On September 3, 2008, the team in which I was assigned went to Suburban Street in Orlando and searched the area near where the remains of Caylee Anthony were found.

4. We were not officially assigned to search that area. We went on our own.

5. We were in that area for approximately 3 to 4 hours.

6. I personally searched near the privacy fence and worked my way towards and then beyond the spot where the body was found.

7. I did not notice anything unusual.

8. I did not notice a strange smell. I noticed no buzzards, nor unusual animal or insect activity.

9. It is my opinion that the remains of Caylee Anthony were not there during the time of our search.

Well, this lady can't be used to bolster the motion to compel TES to turn over the documents for all searchers, she wasn't searching the area with TES. This is strike two of two available to the defense.

I do find her statement a bit strange. It sounds as though she was asked specific questions with yes/no answers and then put in statement form. For example, the interviewer could have asked, "Did you see any buzzards?" and she could simply have said, "no". Anyway, the statement says more that the searchers were looking for a body and not skeletal remains. Buzzards and bugs do not hang around bones. Nor would there be any noticeable smells emanating from bones. She is probably not an expert and her opinion that the remains were there, in many cases, buried under the soil or hidden by heavy plant growth. Notice that again, there is no statement concerning the "lay of the land" on the day she searched. She wasn't in a meadow, it was a swampy morass!

If the defense believes the body was placed on Suburban Drive when Casey was in jail, they will have to come up with better witnesses. I am hoping that the scientific evidence as to plant growth through the bones and the locations where they were found will disprove any of this nonsense!

See you in court for the hearing tomorrow at 9:30 AM. InSession will be covering it as well as the local TV stations.

For those who have been following the George “G” Thomas trial, it didn’t come as a surprise when the jury read the sentence today.

After just under two hours of deliberating, the jury notified Judge Baumgartner they had reached a decision and then pronounced they unanimously decided on life without parole for each of the felony and the aggravated murders charges for Chris and Channon.

The families voiced a bit of disappointment, but accept that Thomas will die in a penitentiary.

Both Thomas and Cobbins will appear before Judge Baumgartner in February for sentencing on all of the lesser charges committed during these horrendous crimes.

Vanessa Coleman is scheduled to go to trial on May 10 and T & T will be covering the proceedings.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Defense attorneys have requested and extension from December 25 to January 8 for filing pretrial motions in the murder case. Jacques was indicted by a federal grand jury in the kidnap, drugging, rape, and murder of his niece, 12-year-old Brooke Bennett.

The filing also indicated that the defense would be seeking to have the federal indictment dropped. Jean Barrett, a New Jersey death-penalty specialist, states the federal court can only try cases that involve crimes committed that cross state lines. Barrett asserts that Jacques alleged crimes all occurred in Vermont and he should therefore by tried by the state.

The move effectively could allow Jacques to escape the death penalty because Vermont has no death penalty law.

This past August, US Attorney General Eric Holder notified the Burlington Attorney’s Office that the government could pursue the death penalty in the event that Jacques was found guilty of the charges.

The case was originally turned over to the federal authorities because Jacques is accused of persuading and under age girl to engage in sex acts and those videos were transported over state lines. Brooke’s ex-stepfather, Raymond Gagnon, was found guilty this past summer of transporting pornography to several states.

While the legal wrangling continues, Jacques was moved from a federal facility in Devens, MA to a federal jail in Brooklyn, NY.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Update #2!Add another motion to this trial. Judge Strickland will hear MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERFormer Baez PI Dominic Casey, whose relationship to this case is twisted and confused as to precisely which parties he represented when. Casey is scheduled to be deposed by the State later this month. He is still claiming privilege.Update!Orange Coundy has submitted a reply to the motions filed by the defense to have the videotapes of the family visits destroyed and not to videotape her meetings with her lawyers. The motion points out that they cannot change their practices for one person. In addition, they would be liable for violating state laws concerning the use of these videos.The motion also indicated that Orange County, speaking for the Department of Corrections was not the proper authority to deal with whether or not the videos are sealed or disseminated.Motion

Also, Bill Sheaffer has an excellent article posted on his blog that deals with the reason for all the motions being filed by the defense.

This Friday, December 11, is the next motion hearing for Casey Anthony. It is looking to be another humdinger. George and Cindy Anthony, as well as their attorney, Brad Conway, have been subpoenaed to testify. It isn't clear if they have been subpoenaed by the prosecution or the defense. It isn't clear either precisely for which motion their testimony will be needed.

A good guess is that the defense is going to ask George and Cindy about their inability to visit their daughter, Casey, while she's been incarcerated in the Orange County Jail. Unfortunately, the Anthonys don't have a good record when they testify. Their testimony at Casey's bond hearing last year yielded no results. George Anthony was unable to convince the judge that their sensitivities should be respected concerning Caylee's autopsy results. Finally, at the recent hearing when George Anthony got on the stand to discuss the Padilla & Co. situation, his testimony again failed to convince the judge to bar their testimony.

As for Brad Conway's subpoena, your guess is as good as mine.

Two of the motions to be discussed at the hearing Friday concern videotaping of jail visits and attorney visits couldn't be heard at the last hearing since Baez & Co. had noticed the OCSO instead of the jail authorities:

The defense has tried before to have family videos sealed. Now, they want them destroyed as well. Based on the Judge Strickland's previous decision, he will not go against jail policy concerning these videos. Anyway, it is clear that all the previous visits were watched real-time by investigators on the case. Those videos could be used as evidence based on their contents. Likewise, the judge refused to go against jail policy to allow the family a private, unrecorded, session for the family to hold an intimate "service" for Caylee.

The problem here is that the Anthony family has serious dysfunction. Looking at any of the early visits last summer clearly show the problems that exist. I they were able to carry on normal, everyday conversation, the media would soon lose interest in their comments. It is difficult to imagine these people not having to vent their issues during any visit.

Concerning the previous visits, Jose Baez is quoted in an article on WESH.

Baez also said he hopes the defense can persuade Strickland to limit or eliminate videos of Anthony's jail visits.

"What happened with the other visits was horrible," Baez said

He said the state's release of those videos "is used to paint an ugly picture of her."

The fact is, the release of the jail videos is required under Florida's Sunshine Laws. The State had no choice in the matter.

The videos weren't "used" to paint an ugly picture of Casey. Casey took care of that all by herself.

Another motion to be heard Friday is the defense's motion to preclude the death penalty which was filed September 30, 2009. The State filed their reply. The State's reply was pretty much overlooked because it was filed October 8, 2009, the same day as a major document dump.

It's worth a read. Penned by Assistant State's Attorney Jeff Ashton, it uses some very strong language to attack the defense. In part, Ashton states:

In her Motion, through counsel, the Defendant, once again, has filed a legally insufficient motion which the State would move this court to deny the motion of the pleadings and avoid the grandstanding at a hearing before the media which appears to be the sole purpose being the filing of the motions. Had she the desire to actually litigate a legitimate issue, surely she would have acknowledged in the preface of her Motion that this court lacks jurisdiction to have the hearing she requests...

In a reply to the motion filed October 30, 2009 Andrea Lyon (and Jose Baez) Again asserted that the State had not confronted the defense arguments where were essentially:

I. The Judiciary Has the Authority and Duty to Curb Prosecutorial Discretion Where the Prosecution Has Impermissible Motives.

II. ....This Court Must Ensure that the Prosecution's Decision to Seek the Death Penalty is Not Driven by Impermissible Motives.

III. By Seeking the Death Penalty Where It Is Not Justified by a Legitimate State Interest, the Prosecution is Impermissibly Attempting to Prevent the Exercise of Miss Anthony's Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process.

That's it for starters! I have good reason to suspect that this portion of the hearing will be full of high drama from Andrea Lyons.

In a recent blog article, Richard Hornsby discussed this motion at length and concluded by saying,

So until such time as the trial is held and the death penalty imposed, this motion is moot.

His article doesn't give much hope to any of the motions and is a recommended read.

The final motion to be covered in the hearing is for the check fraud trial.

As I said, Richard Hornsby addressed the legalities here and I can't begin to do as fine a job as he does. Do read the blog. You will be rewarded with a terrific video at the end.

Now, we get to the motion sickness part. Today, Sprocket asked me how many reams of paper I had gone through. The answer to that question is: 4 or 5. How many ink cartridges, I can't begin to say. I am the sort who need to have the motions printed out and duly annotated to keep track of them.

As I was preparing this article, I made a list of the motions outstanding and it was quite impressive.

The check fraud case, which is set to be tried January 25, 2010, has a number of outstanding motions. Here they are:

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Once again, the families and friends of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom arrived at a Knoxville courtroom on Tuesday, December 1 for what is the third of four trials they must suffer through.The current defendant is George “G” Thomas.Throughout the week, Thomas has been attentive, staring ahead or at the defense table, but showing no emotion.

What makes this trial different is there is no forensic evidence tying Thomas to the crimes.Thomas admits to being at the Chipman Street house and additional testimony will place him there at the time of the crimes.The strong DNA evidence in the first trials does not exist here.

As guest writer, David in Tennessee previously reported, the jury for this trial is from Chattanooga and has been sequestered for the duration of the trial.

Both David and I admit that the Cobbins and Davidson trials were difficult to watch and emotionally draining.Observing the Christian and Newsom families stoically enduring the horrific testimony about what was done to their children was almost unbearable.

Channon’s dad, Gary, rocks in his seat.His anger is palpable, visible, and painful to witness.

I’m not sure it can all be attributable to Gary, but throughout all of the trials, 3 very large officers face the spectators – backs to the bench – out of concern that someone may just explode and attempt to attack a defendant.

During opening statements, Prosecutor Takisha Fitzgerald told the jury that Thomas, by his own admission, knew co-defendants Lemaricus Davidson and Letalvis Cobbins were cooking up a carjacking.He also admitted to taking a ride in Christian's carjacked Toyota 4Runner.

So, even if “G” didn’t commit the actual rapes or murders he still, quite possibly faces the death penalty for having knowledge of the crimes being committed as he sat in the Chipman Street house, yet doing nothing to stop the crimes or notifying police.

So, we have spent the week basically rehashing testimony we have heard.The atmosphere in the courtroom is nowhere near as tense as what we’ve experienced so far.

Having already heard most of the testimony, my mind begins to wander till it dawns on me (hopefully the jury hasn’t followed the case) that all of this testimony has to be presented so the jury fully understands how cruel and heinous these crimes were and that Thomas didn’t give a damn.

A few important things have happened this week:

Ethel Lynn Freeman was on the hot seat as the defense questioned her about inconsistencies in her testimony.

She has testified both for and against the prosecution.She has claimed to have seen Thomas walking down the street on January 7, 2007 and also claimed to have been stopped and asked for gas money by Channon on the night of January 6.

On Thursday, Freeman insisted she was totally sure of seeing Thomas, but now stated something a bit different regarding seeing Channon and Chris at the gas station.

"And in your mind you're not mistaken about seeing George Thomas before noon the following day, right," Dillard asked.

Freeman agreed.

"I knew George Thomas so I'm absolutely sure it was George Thomas," Freeman continued. "I didn't know Channon or Chris."

"Are you sure you saw them," Dillard asked.

"I'm sure they appeared to be the people that looked like Channon and Chris once I seen on the news, I said 'I saw them that night at Exxon'," Freeman replied.

When attorneys began to argue in open court about Freeman's testimony, Judge Richard Baumgartner sent the jury out of the courtroom.

The judge agreed to let the prosecution continue to redirect, but not before he admitted Freeman's credibilty was damaged.

"What's happened here is her credibility has been attacked with some regard and effectively so I might point out," Judge Baumgartner said.

As an aside, not a single person I have spoken to or comment I have read regarding Freeman’s testimony at any time she has testified, did anyone profess belief in her story.

On Friday, Detective Nevil Norman was called to the stand.This is what everyone has been waiting for!The jury heard the tapped police interrogation where Thomas described seeing Channon Christian and Chris Newsom in January 2007.

"Do you remember when "E" and "Slim" got out of the car and a white guy and a white girl with them and they had blindfolds over their eyes and their hands were tied,"

"Yeah, I remember seeing them,"

On tape, Thomas admitted to riding in Christian's stolen Toyota Four Runner, which he called a 'nice ride'.

After Thomas' taped interrogation was played on Friday, Norman continued to testify about what happened right after the conclusion of the tapped session.He says he was shocked by Thomas’ response when asked why he didn’t call for help.

"(Expletive) that white girl. She didn't mean anything to me you cops come into my neighborhood and kill us so why should I get involved in something that doesn't matter, that doesn't matter to me."

Realizing they had a problem, the prosecution quickly referred Detective Norman back to his memorandum to correct his testimony.

December 5, 2009Barring delays, October 18, 2010 will see the start of the murder trial for Melissa Huckaby. That is more than a year and a half since her arrest in April for the kidnap, rape, and murder of young Sandra Cantu. Huckaby has pleaded not guilty to the murder as well to charges of drugging two others.

The defense has filed motions to suppress evidence and also to dismiss the grand jury indictment. Judge Linda Lofthus will consider the defense motion to suppress evidence on February 16, but did not indicated when the motion to dismiss the grand jury indictment will be heard. Once again, Lofthus has sealed the motions and issued a gag in the case.

San Joaquin County prosecutors have been pushing for a speedy trial because they say younger witnesses who may testify could have a difficult time recalling specifics in the case. They will be seeking the death penalty.

San Francisco death penalty defense attorney, Michael Burt attended the hearing on Friday, while Huckaby’s defense attorney Sam Behar did not due to illness.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Since I last reported on the Case Against Casey, all heck has broken loose. I watched it all go by. Every time I was ready to report, something new happened and so on and so on. I've had a few days to digest the news and put together some thoughts for you all and a summary of the action with plenty of links.

The first hint that something was up came with a November 18 report on WESH.

The Anthonys' attorney said Kronk's personal life and the circumstances of discovering the remains are different things. George and Cindy Anthony's attorney said all they want is the truth from Kronk and not dirt about his past.

"They have been vilified unfairly. They know what it's like to be under a microscope unfairly and they don't want that to happen to someone who found their granddaughter," attorney Brad Conway said.

Now, I had just finished reading the e-mails between PI Dominic Casey and Cindy Anthony, starting on page 48 of the PDF, which were replete with comments about Kronk and information about his past. Something just wasn't right here!

Sure enough, the very next day, November 19, Clickorlando reported that the defense had taken on a new member, Mort Smith "a Chicago-based private investigator who teaches at DePaul University, the same school where fellow defense team member Andrea Lyon teaches." Mr. Smith had taken on the task of digging into Roy Kronks's past.

This was reported as Mr. Kronk was being deposed by the defense. When he left the deposition at the end of the day,

Kronk said. “He was very nice to me. And it was a very nice mood in there, so, it wasn't a bad day at all.”

they have evidence Kronk has a possible history of inappropriate behavior with young girls

that he has used duct tape to restrain women

that he has a history of abusing and restraining women

Kronk's attorney, David Evans, released a fairly lengthily statement which concluded:

It is the nature of criminal defense to attempt to find someone to blame for a crime other than the person charged. Mr. Kronk has understood from the beginning that the defense might attempt to cast suspicions in his direction--because that's what defense attorneys do. In their zeal to defend Casey Anthony, defense counsel has filed papers with the Court that are filled with allegations that have no basis in fact and falsely accuse Mr. Kronk of various types of bad behavior.

Included with the motion were videos of portions of the interviews with Mort Smith:

Ms. Kerley's interview was the one which was the most inflammatory. She accused Kronk of beating her and binding her hands (once, twice?) with 100-mile-an hour duct tape. When asked what she thought of when she heard about his finding the remains, she said "that he had done it."

Crystal Sparks was mentioned in the D. Casey and C. Anthony e-mails. One comment that stands out in my mind is when it is mentioned that Ms. Sparks had posted last year on various websites, praising Kronk for his actions.

The son was no kinder than the ex-wives. Notable in his statement is that he claimed his father called him in November to tell him about his discovery and how he would be in the news.

Once this news hit, the lawyers who report for the local stations began a rather heated debate over the value of this motion.

WFTV analyst Bill Sheaffer came out first with a raw interview with the station. He blasted the defense royally for the motion, stating, "This is beyond a pathetic attempt, this is a despicable act on the part of the defense in this case," If you haven't heard it before, it is worth a listen.

Filing and publicizing the latest so-called ”Motion in Limine” by the Anthony defense team, which would now seem to include Brad Conway, lawyer for George and Cindy Anthony, is an all-time low on a grand scale, even for this crew. This so-called defense tactic, designed to shift the focus of blame away from their client Casey Anthony, is neither new nor unusual in this case. It seems to have begun with allegations against Zenaida Gonzales, then, Jesse Grund, a former Casey boyfriend, to now a very vicious and public attack on an innocent citizen, former Orange County employee, Roy Kronk, the poor soul who had the misfortune to discover Casey Anthony’s handiwork of her little girl’s body dumped like garbage in the woods.

Again, this is a must-read if you haven't already seen it.

The following day, November 21, WKMG was reporting that the Anthony family had no idea this blast against Kronk was coming.

London wanted to know what George and Cindy Anthony, Casey's parents, had to say about the defense team's latest move. "I called Brad Conway, their attorney," Pipitone said. "He says they had no idea this was coming until they saw media reports. He says that they now just want to wait and see how this develops. ... They say what's important to them is to just know the truth."

I find it hard to believe this statement. It sets off my BS meter when Conway had previously stated that the Anthony's did NOT want to see Kronk maligned. I agree with Mr. Sheaffer when he indicates that Conway was involved. Oh, and let's not forget Cindy's involvement with hunting up the dirt on Kronk!

Next, attorney Richard Hornsby joined the fray full-force. On WESH-Channel 2, legal analyst Richard Hornsby said, "This is the first significant and credible shot the defense has taken against the state. I think it has a high likelihood of success."

November 22, Hornsby expanded on his comments on his blog in an article entitled. In Defense of the Casey Anthony Defense. In it, he explains a lot about the law and also takes time to blast Sheaffer in a rather startling manner, it is also worth some time.

Sheaffer responded through halboedeker's blog in the Orlando Sentinel.

"I have been asked for, and strive to, consistently deliver sound legal analysis of this case, based upon my knowledge and experience gained from 30 years as a criminal defense attorney and my time as a prosecutor. I am honored to share my insights with the viewers of WFTV Eyewitness News and enjoy the free exchange of ideas that result. It is, of course, always easier to criticize than to create, and it is easier to denigrate than to develop one's own well-reasoned discourse on a topic. There will always be those who prefer to take that easier route. I think the public, the judicial system and the memory of Caylee are better served if the focus of the discussion remains on the facts of the case and the workings of our judicial system and not those who opine on these matters."

What really matters to me is that we now have two blogs by two Florida attorneys with differing ideas. Let's hope that both these gentlemen contine to post as the trial goes on. We who aren't attorneys and follow the case can use as much legal information as possible.

Now, back to the Kronk motion!

Immediately after filing the motion, the defense went on a major media blitz which covered both locally and nationally. I've posted two of the links at the end of the article . What strikes me most is the fact that this motion is clearly saying that Kronk needs to be considered a person of interest in the case, the information given relates to long-ago events in his life. Who better than ex-wives and estranged children to make all sorts of statements, apparently NOT under sworn oath. The motion and memorandum point out many differences in Kronk's reports. They even say, at the very end of page 31 of the Memorandum that:

The evidence she sees to introduce at trial is crucial to her ability to undermine Mr. Kronk's credibility before the jury. Because its impeachment value has already been demonstrated by the contrast with Mr. Kronk's answers at his November 19, 2009 desposition, this evidence should be admitted at trial.

There's a bit of a problem here! If one turns to page 32 of the Memorandum, one will see that it was signed by Jose Baez and Andrea Lyon on November 18, 2009!

Finally, there is one more motion that hasn't be mentioned too much. It's the MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY OF JILL KERLEY . The motion was signed by Baez and Lyon on November 18, so we can assume it was filed the 19th along with the other Kronk motion. This motion is asking for Ms. Kerley to be deposed so that she can attest to the following under oath:

Ms. Kerley is the former wife of Roy Kronk, and was married to him for approximately four months. Her testimony is material in this case to the matter of introduction of evidence regarding third-party guilt, namely that Mr. Kronk shoud be a suspect in this case....

I would really love to know more about the former Mrs. Kronk of four months. I would love to know how long ago they were married. I would love to know if she knows that Kronk abducted Caylee Anthony. And there lies the rub. There is absolutely no evidence that Kronk had any connections to Casey Anthony. There is no evidence to show any connection between Caylee's death and Mr. Kronk. I sure hope Mr. Kronk has a terrific alibi, like he was at work or playing computer games online at the time!

I hope Judge Strickland rules against the original motion and I'm looking forward to your opinions!

CONTRIBUTORS

T&T Readers To Date:

CORRECTIONS

T&T is always happy to make a correction, if warranted, upon request. Correction requests or demands received from a lawyer will be referred to our counsel and will, unavoidably, slow down the correction review process. We consider corrections to be a matter of journalistic integrity and not legal compulsion.

DISCLAIMER:

The expressions in this blog are our opinions or the opinions of our featured writers. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following the blog articles are the opinions and sole property of the commenter's and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.